Am I right in thinking that you were saying that some libraries have been given protected treatment compared to community centres?

“There’s a lot of people campaigning for libraries to stay open without the nuanced debate about what a library is for and whether they are good enough. I see a lot of libraries and a lot of community organisations and I see them both suffer, the latter more than libraries.

“There’s a lot of people campaigning for libraries to stay open without the nuanced debate about what a library is for “

Councils have a statutory responsibility ‘to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons’ in the area – and this allows for consultations. Elected members are also aware of the public outcry and may shy away from closing them. Community centres, on the other hand, seem to have to roll with the punches. They don’t write to MPs, there’s no protest, no Lord’s debate, and there’s no campaigning.”

It sounds like you’re saying that community centres are being cut because their users are not campaigning to keep them open. Doesn’t this simply mean that users of community centres should campaign more?

Austerity is real and we know there is not enough money to go around. I’m not saying I like this – I don’t like it. And I can lobby for more money for key services and call for a debate about the quality of those services at the same time. I don’t believe the two are mutually exclusive.

Local authorities have seen cuts of around 30% between 2010 and 2015 – some £18 billion in real terms. And the cuts keep coming year on year. We need to debate the quality of what we have, and how public money can get to the places really supporting their local communities.

“I don’t believe it helps libraries to hold them as automatically sacred.”

I’m quite a practical person so I’m not sure if campaigning is helping councils to make decisions in a strategic way. But in a community where the library is under-used and the community centre is busy, then yes, I think the council take a strategic view and either close the library and house core library services within the community centre, or bring the two offers under one roof. I don’t believe it helps libraries to hold them as automatically sacred.

Should campaigners for libraries stay quiet then?

No. We should be talking about all of this. About cuts. About priorities. About quality of provision. But I want councils to take a strategic view on who is best to provide that and I would want the people who are campaigning to take that strategic view as well.

“Campaigning does work but I’d like to see it informed by real, every day users. Not evangelists.”

Campaigning does work but I’d like to see it informed by real, every day users. Not evangelists. I’d like people to look at the issues, and the needs of communities holistically, not just idealistically.

Would the cuts to libraries go some way to explain why they’re not the community hubs you want them to be?

Some libraries are great and are the community hubs people and communities need. All councils have to face the cuts – some have done so and have still managed to modernise and improve their library services. Others have been taken by surprise by the cuts, and were never planning any changes. They weren’t evolving in terms of meeting the needs of their community, or of meeting the challenges of digital services and channel shift.

“They didn’t do it ten years ago when they had more money. Why are we giving them that excuse now? “

Poor quality libraries now were probably not great quality libraries ten years ago either. It isn’t just about money – it’s about strategy and vision, too. They didn’t do it ten years ago when they had more money. Why are we giving them that excuse now? Especially when we’re not making excuses for the other grassroots organisations working with the same communities?

What should failing libraries be doing that they’re not?

I want to pay tribute to the great library staff working hard on the ground, everyday in each individual library. The failure, where it exists, is in leadership at council and national level. Who is helping those librarians and councils to work out what a good strategy for libraries is? Who is offering support for failing libraries to improve their offer? Staff and leaders need to be inspired to develop a new kind of culture. It’s not about kicking them because they’re at bottom, it’s about helping them to improve. I’d like to see a national strategic development plan for libraries.

“The failure, where it exists, is in leadership at council and national level.”

As Tinder Foundation is a social and digital inclusion charity, I’d like to see more emphasis on libraries reaching out to the people who are most excluded in our society. And in today’s world not having the basic skills you need to function in a digital world exacerbates social disadvantages many people in our communities suffer. Some libraries are not fully supporting these people.

What proportion of libraries do you think are underachieving?

I would probably say 10%. Partly, the frustration is a lot of people involved in libraries just talk to other people involved in libraries, so it’s all about how to protect libraries and how to keep on doing what they’ve always done. You should come at it with a blank piece of paper, look at your budget and see how you can best help people. Let’s not draw a big exclusive circle around libraries. Let’s start from what’s the purpose of libraries – from the beginning it was about free, open, welcoming spaces and offers, to help people find knowledge, information, stimulation, inspiration, learning, and entertainment. If you start with that as a concept, what kind of service would design from a blank slate?

Has the debate about your article been useful?

Sort of! I don’t think that saying some libraries are better than others was that controversial. It has been an elephant in the room for some time – and I can’t imagine it was really a huge shock to anyone. It was also not an attack on libraries as a whole, nor on librarians. It was a response to the Lords debate that billed all libraries as community hubs, bringing essential community services together under one roof. This is simply not the case. It does a disservice to the libraries doing this job brilliantly, and to the other types of community organisation doing this job brilliantly. They deserve our support for being good, not just for being libraries. I completely stand by that.

“It was also not an attack on libraries as a whole, nor on librarians. It was a response to the Lords debate that billed all libraries as community hubs, bringing essential community services together under one roof. This is simply not the case.”

My article is saying that the debate needs to be about great services that meet the needs of people and communities. Just talking about libraries as if they don’t exist alongside other provision isn’t taking in the bigger picture.

I love libraries, and I want them to be better. I want them to survive. But to do so, some of them have to change. And yes, some of them may have to close, or merge with other organisations – if there’s other provision nearby that’s better. This is about supporting great community offers, not about knocking libraries. Putting the good libraries on the same pedestal as the bad ones does not help. Pretending all libraries are great does not help libraries to improve. I want to see us broaden the debate about what communities need. I’d like to see a visionary (and realistic) national strategic development plan for libraries. It’s a debate I think was worth having.

“I love libraries, and I want them to be better. I want them to survive. But to do so, some of them have to change.”

This entry was posted by Ian Anstice on October 27, 2016 at 6:51 pm, and is filed under Uncategorized. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

This is much more nuanced presentation by Helen Milner compared to the Tinder Foundation press releases (25 and 27 Oct) which seemed to be a rather condescending attack on public libraries. I don’t think the Tinder Foundation has done itself or libraries any good by putting out those press releases.

Helen, has been unfairly criticised for highlighting an issue that needs to be addressed. On the other hand I have sympathy for campaigners facing wholesale reductions rather than strategic decisions. Two and half years ago I wrote:

“Firstly, the focus should be on service not buildings. This point has been recognised by many within the profession but unfortunately not widely enacted (Brent being the possible exception). Sue Charteris noted that the term comprehensiveness did not have to mean a library on every corner and that cover depended on assessment matched against resources available. In addition library buildings needed to be evaluated to see if they were fit for purpose and in the right place to serve the needs of the community.

The sad fact is many smaller libraries are underused, badly located, in poor condition, and expensive to maintain in comparison to usage. Despite this, many campaigns focus on saving the building rather than taking a rounded view of the overall service. This is where the role of the professional librarian is essential, to take a wider, more strategic view.

Contraction of the library network and reducing the costs of the physical estate is not necessarily a bad thing if it ensures the overall quality of provision and delivery is improved and resources available to develop other areas of the service.

Service managers need to make difficult, and sometimes unpopular decisions in order to deliver the most efficient service with the resources available, which is why we need to move the focus away from library buildings and argue for a quality led approach and improved methods of delivery.”

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

CAPTCHA Code *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Please note that this website is produced entirely independently of any employer or other organisation. Any view expressed within are wholly mine.

Subscribe or Search

Join 1,682 other subscribers

Email Address

Contact

Please send any news, comment or thoughts to ianlibrarian@live.co.uk.

Find library changes and recent news near you

Numbers

From 1st April 2017 to end of March 2018, CIPFA reported 127 libraries lost. Since 1st April 2016 to end of March 2017. CIPFA reported 105 libraries closed, bringing the total to 3745 branches. 2015 to end of March 2016: CIPFA reported 121 libraries closed, bringing the total to 3850 libraries. In 2014/15 there was a decline of 106 public libraries, (with 260 static libraries were put under threat of closure/passing to volunteers. 9 mobile libraries under threat in the same period). .

There were 4023 in 2013/14, 4482 in 2009/10 and 4622 in 2003/4. CIpfa have calculated that 121 service points lost in 2015/16, 106 service points were lost in 2014/15, 49 were lost in 2013/14, 74 were lost in 2012/13, 201 in 2011/12, 33 in 2010/11.

....
The complete list is on "Tally by Local Authority" page as are other changes to budgets such as cuts to hours, bookfund and staffing. ....
For a list of new and refurbished buildings see this page,

Cookies and Thank you

Please also note that this site uses cookies and use of the site presumes an inherent acceptance of this. Thank you.

I would also like to add at this point my thanks to Shirley Burnham for her frequent emails with relevant public libraries news which I then use as a a large part of the material for this site.

Warren O'Donoghue of Rabbitdigital Design has been wonderful in designing and creating this website, maintaining it and basically being there for the one hundred and one web problems that seem to surface all the time.